JUDGMENT : The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:- “i) declare that the respondents 4 and 5 who are not members 60 days prior to the date of poll are not entitled to vote in the election to be held pursuant to Ext.P3 election notification on 24-5-2025; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the 3rd respondent not to allow the respondents 4 and 5 to vote in the election held pursuant to Ext.P3 on 24-5-2025; iii) to dispense· with English Translation of vernacular documents; iv) issue such' other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice, and allow the costs of this proceeding to the petitioner. ” 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the inclusion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the final voters list published by the competent authority for the election to the Circle Co-operative Union, Devikulam. 3. On 15.03.2025, respondent No.2, the Circle Co-operative Union resolved to conduct election to the Union on 24.05.2025. The resolution was forwarded to the Election Commission. The Commission issued Ext.P3 election notification scheduling the election to the Circle Co-operative Union on 24.05.2025. The final voters list was published on 28.04.2025. 4. The petitioner challenges the inclusion of the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the voters list on the ground that those Co-operative Societies were placed within the administrative control of the Devikulam Assistant Registrar (General) office, only on 28.03.2025 as per Ext.P2 notification. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, for inclusion of the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the voters list, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Societies should have been placed within the administrative control of the Devikulam Assistant Registrar (General) Office, 60 days prior to the date of voting. It is therefore submitted that the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not eligible to exercise their franchise in the election. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. It is therefore submitted that the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not eligible to exercise their franchise in the election. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 challenges this contention stating that, the Rules mandate only that, the members shall be full time employees of those Societies as on the date of 60 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that as the final voters list has been published, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the election process and that the petitioner has alternate remedy as provided in Rule 136 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The learned Standing Counsel relied on Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2001 KHC 1667] and Denny V.P. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) and Others [2019 KHC 4954]. 7. Rule 136 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 read with Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, forms a complete code framed for adjudication of any dispute relating to the election to the Circle Co-operative Union. 8. In Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [ 2001 (8) SCC 509 ], the Apex Court held thus:- “9.….. the preparation of electoral roll is part of the election process and if there is any breach of the rules in preparing the electoral roll, the same can be called in question after the declaration of the result of the election by means of an election petition before the tribunal…… XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 12. In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll is being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll…….” 9. In Denny V.P. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) and Others [2019 KHC 4954], a Division Bench of this Court in the context of election to Societies observed thus:- “11. In Denny V.P. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) and Others [2019 KHC 4954], a Division Bench of this Court in the context of election to Societies observed thus:- “11. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules with respect to the conduct of election to societies is virtually a complete code in itself. The term ‘election will take in the entire election process beginning from the stage of preparation of the preliminary voters’ list till the declaration of the result of election. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami’s case (supra) this question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajitha Kumari’s case (supra). Taking note of the fact that the rules under the societies are complete code in itself dealing with the entire process of election culminating in declaration of the result of the election, this Court held that even if there is breach of rules of there is non-compliance of certain mandatory provisions of rules while preparing the electoral roll, it could be challenged under R.81(d) (iv) of KCS Rules by means of an Election Petition……..… …….Merely because of illegality in the matter of preparation of electoral roll including inclusion of ineligible persons is alleged and the materials before the Electoral Officer are insufficient to determine the question of ineligibility of members to remain as voters court would not be justified in interfering with the election process once it is started because such illegality, if established later, could be dealt with appropriately in an Election Petition….” 10. Having regard to the legal position discussed above, this Court of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested for directing the Returning Officer to ensure that the votes of disputed members included in the final voters list, who are allegedly ineligible, be placed in a separate box. 12. Having regard to the circumstances highlighted, it is only just and proper to direct the Returning Officer to ensure that the votes of the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 included in the final voters list shall be kept in a separate box. 12. Having regard to the circumstances highlighted, it is only just and proper to direct the Returning Officer to ensure that the votes of the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 included in the final voters list shall be kept in a separate box. It is also made clear that after the election, the result can be published and the elected body can assume charge, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to redress his grievance in accordance with law.